Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

Northern Light said:
Sure, but to the average person, the core is not walking distance for commuting, school or a grocery store.

For this kind of density, the Ontario Line needs to have a stop in this community. The Waterfront East LRT and Broadview LRT, will not have sufficient capacity to move the projected population.

We need a High School, among other amenities to make this work. There is no indication that the supporting infrastructure will be in place.



Sure, but there are other alternatives.

1) Stop growing the population; that's a choice.

2) We can can place more moderate density across a much larger area.
Click to expand...
This made me think, people asking for a DLR-like service along the waterfront would sure be happy if it turns out the planned streetcars aren’t sufficient. That aside, what’s happening is typical Toronto-area planning; density first, transit after. The sad part is this is a site where transit could’ve been the first and maybe easiest thing to get built, but now anything more than an LRT (maybe even that) will have to plan around what’s already in place.

I’m obviously just echoing what’s been said before, but I do think intuitively that the ideal density for streetcars is obvious in Toronto’s historic urban fabric. This density is (much?) less than what is being built in the east waterfront-portlands… and will be denser still than the corresponding ‘new’ areas in the west (LV, West Waterfront, etc). So that begs the question, is a handful of streetcar projects feeding into East Harbour really going to be enough? I see issues with existing westbound riders from the east now mixing with the many new riders here and further west.

So, In light of the changes at this site, I generally just feel like there should be more to support everything existing and planned in the south east, not just the NE via the OL/GO corridor. I think you are right that these services are just too far to adequately serve the now-greater needs here. Perhaps we should at least have an idea for next steps.
 
Is there some health dept recommended, yet broadly-ignored-by-all number for public green space that best keeps city folks sane? Unless my math is wrong, 16 hectares for 26k people gives us each about 61sq cm. 1. I have yet to determine my post lockdown sq cm size. Dread finding out whether I'd squeeze into 61sq cm. 2. No of course not all 26k of us are going out at once, unless it's a fire alarm or fireworks. 3. No outside guests.

I like the idea of 15min cities, but don't know if they're backed with research that says - okay, people are best served if needs are within 15min, and X amount of public greenspace is best for Y number of residents. But if such a metric exists, I don't think it's being consulted when the general population is asked if there should be more density. Do you want more density/affordable housing? SURE. Do you know how much before it becomes miserable? No, I don't live there.

I would have thought that post-pandemic folks would have at least taken a moment of pause and reflected on "It's just 10min/15min/20min away" to question what they have where they live, and give as much time to THAT as we do to how we leave.

I mean, look at how vaccinations were done in the area. I'd love to see the numbers of residents who went to No Frills or the Jarvis Shoppers, maybe Jimmy Simpson or the Scotiabank Arena to get the poke, then show me the difference between Esplanade residents who stayed local, versus Distillery/Canary who had the means to bolt for quicker appointments farther away. Then tell me how those results compare to folks on the density argument. If you can drive to seven different Loblaws it's likely you don't care that the No Frills on Front -with its constant line ups- is going away, and can afford to talk about density in a distanced manner.

People need things where they live and I'd like to think we have the numbers on what's a healthy density for life as well as commerce, but if we DO have that - it's not part of the argument presented to the folks weighing in. And that's concerning.

So with that in mind, I propose we just level East York and rebuild everything to 17 storeys. I don't live there, they've got transit, I'm sure they'll all be fine.

In the meantime I've gotta go see how many square cm I am (wish me luck)
 
jsmith77 said:
Is there some health dept recommended, yet broadly-ignored-by-all number for public green space that best keeps city folks sane? Unless my math is wrong, 16 hectares for 26k people gives us each about 61sq cm. 1. I have yet to determine my post lockdown sq cm size. Dread finding out whether I'd squeeze into 61sq cm. 2. No of course not all 26k of us are going out at once, unless its a fire alarm or fireworks. 3. No outside guests.

I like the idea of 15min cities, but don't know if they're backed with research that says - okay, people are best served if needs are within 15min, and X amount of public greenspace is best for Y number of residents. But if such a metric exists, I don't think it's being consulted when the general population is asked if there should be more density. Do you want more density/affordable housing? SURE. Do you know how much before it becomes miserable? No, I don't live there.

I would have thought that post-pandemic folks would have at least taken a moment of pause and reflected on "Its just 10min/15min/20min away" to question what they have where they live, and give as much time to THAT as we do to how we leave.

I mean, look at how vaccinations were done in the area. I'd love to see the numbers of residents who went to No Frills or the Jarvis Shoppers, maybe Jimmy Simpson or the Scotiabank Arena to get the poke, then show me the difference between Esplanade residents who stayed local, versus Distillery/Canary who had the means to bolt for quicker appointments farther away. Then tell me how those results compare to folks on the density argument. If you can drive to seven different Loblaws it's likely you don't care that the No Frills on Front -with its constant line ups- is going away, and can afford to talk about density in a distanced manner.

People need things where they live and I'd like to think we have the numbers on what's a healthy density for life as well as commerce, but if we DO have that - its not part of the argument presented to the folks weighing in. And that's concerning.

So with that in mind, I propose we just level East York and rebuild everything to 17 storeys. I don't live there, they've got transit, I'm sure they'll all be fine.

In the meantime I've gotta go see how many square cm I am (wish me luck)
Click to expand...

Is there even a number that makes actual sense considering the huge range in human settlements?

AoD
 
3Dementia said:
Assuming a good mix of architects and developers (see West Don Lands) along with the wonderful public realm plans... including (16 hectares of parkland) the new waterfront public art trail along the new river, Promontory Parks North and South and Villiers Park etc.

... I'd venture the quality of life here one day will be second to none in the city. 🔮

View attachment 487903
https://trcaca.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/app/uploads/2017/02/17173811/May92009MVVAWTpresentation.pdf
Click to expand...

Quibble: The plan is not for 16ha of parkland but for 11.2ha of parkland.

Extra Quibble: Everything in the image below in dark green is marsh, you'll only have limited access on boardwalks, it's not like is a soccer pitch or people can spread widely around.

1687816752827.png



Of note, there is only one playing field (soccer) proposed for the area, and it is to be shared w/the new school.
 
jsmith77 said:
Is there some health dept recommended, yet broadly-ignored-by-all number for public green space that best keeps city folks sane? Unless my math is wrong, 16 hectares for 26k people gives us each about 61sq cm.
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind I agree w/your basis thesis here, your math is off by one order of magnitude, to the extent 16ha was the right number (as noted above, I don't think it is)

But the numbers you have work out to 6.1m2 per person. ( a hectare is 10000m2 so 16 is 160000m2)

The City wide average is 28m2 per person, and as I noted in a previous post, many, many cities around the world have a lot more parkland per person than Toronto.
 
Oh the other thing I keep meaning to ask about- the New Munition St bridge. How’s that being built? I’ve lost track of the fancy ones we had Uber’d from the east coast- but were out of those no?
 
jsmith77 said:
Unless my math is wrong, 16 hectares for 26k people gives us each about 61sq cm. 1. I have yet to determine my post lockdown sq cm size. Dread finding out whether I'd squeeze into 61sq cm. 2. No of course not all 26k of us are going out at once, unless its a fire alarm or fireworks. 3. No outside guests.
Click to expand...
Where's the 26k coming from? I assume this is including a lot of areas other than Villiers Island. Are you including all the other parkland in that total? Corktown Common alone is 7 hectares if you're including the West Don Lands.
 
smably said:
Where's the 26k coming from? I assume this is including a lot of areas other than Villiers Island. Are you including all the other parkland in that total? Corktown Common alone is 7 hectares if you're including the West Don Lands.
Click to expand...
I’ve gone through all the UT projects proposed and finished for Canary District, River City, Distillery District, Quayside, Waterfront, and Queens Quay over to Yonge. Quayside alone is 4,300 units. Sugar Wharf (Phase 1) is 1,444, Phase 2 is 3,076. Yonge Pinnacle is 2,313 units across three buildings.

Those are the highlights. This number does not include possible projects on the silo grounds, the area north of Keating or any land unlocked by the Gardiner. It also doesn’t include existing population on the Esplanade (incl. Time & Space). So 26k is a conservative estimate.

I don’t know what folks use to calculate probable population (1.5ppl per unit?) by that’s a lot of people.
 
smably said:
Where's the 26k coming from? I assume this is including a lot of areas other than Villiers Island. Are you including all the other parkland in that total? Corktown Common alone is 7 hectares if you're including the West Don Lands.
Click to expand...

While I do value numbers and getting them right, as I've demonstrated, I do think it's important not to get overly hung up on just one metric.

The value of parkland is ecological, but for it to serve that purpose well, areas have to be off-limits from people either entirely or mostly (confined to fenced in paths).

The value of parkland is recreational (so we're looking at how many sports fields are needed so that every child can enroll in soccer or baseball etc. and have space to play in their community.)

The value of parkland is informal play/respite outdoors (how many bbqs, how many picnic tables, how much open area kids can run around in, and how many benches to read at).

I was walking in the valley tonight, Taylor Creek Park, its ecological value and respite value is being eroded by overcrowding.

It's a large park, but I have to tell you, no one could bike at speed on the multi-use path tonight, far too many people out, not a few, lots, every few metres, every bench full to the brim w/seniors, kids and couples.

That many people generate a lot of noise and disturb the wildlife as do kids running their bikes across rare plants and into the bush etc, which I saw a few times on my walk.

It's important not to just get hung up on a number, but the real world utility of spaces.

****

To make a related point, it's not just about a school, it's about a school with reasonable class sizes, and a good sized yard; it's not just about 'affordable' housing, but housing people want to live in, that's of reasonable size per unit.

I would argue we've gone the wrong direction in many ways, ever smaller units in the name of affordability and then functionally no kitchen so the family has to order in every night at 4x the cost. No room to store anything, so now they need self-storage 1/2 way across town.

Just counting hectares or units is missing the forest for the trees.

We need a holistic view of whether the community we're creating is one in which we would actually want to live.
 
Last edited:
jsmith77 said:
I don’t know what folks use to calculate probable population (1.5ppl per unit?) by that’s a lot of people.
Click to expand...

On average, 1.81 people per unit is correct calculation; though in truth, you have to do it by unit size/mix.

***

But @smably does have a legitimate point that you need compare apples to apples, so if that's the area where you're collecting the people from, then you need to match that to the parkland in that area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top